4.6 Article

Comparison of compliance for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance by colonoscopy based on risk

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 737-743

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182180c71

Keywords

colorectal cancer; risk factors; family history; screening; surveillance

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [N01-PC-35141, P30 CA42014, R01-CA40641, PO1-CA73992]
  2. National Library of Medicine [LM009331]
  3. Intermountain Healthcare
  4. Homer Warner Center for Informatics Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare colonoscopy screening/surveillance rates by level of risk for colorectal cancer based on age, personal history of adenomatous polyps or colorectal cancer, or family history of colorectal cancer. Methods: Participants were aged 30-90 years, were seen within 5 years at Intermountain Healthcare, and had family history in the Utah Population Database. Colonoscopy rates were measured for those with/without risk factors. Results: Among those aged 60-69 years, 48.4% had colonoscopy in the last 10 years, with rates declining after age 70 years. Percentages of those having had a colonoscopy in the last 10 years generally increased by risk level from 38.5% in those with a familial relative risk <1.0 to 47.6% in those with a familial relative risk >3.0. Compared with those with no family history, the odds ratio for being screened according to guidelines was higher for those with one first-degree relative diagnosed with colorectal cancer >= 60 years or two affected second-degree relatives (1.54, 95% confidence interval: 1.46-1.61) than those with one affected first-degree relative diagnosed <60 years or >= 2 affected first-degree relatives (1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.37). Conclusions: Compliance with colonoscopy guidelines was higher for those with familial risk but did not correspond with the degree of risk. Genet Med 2011: 13(8): 737-743.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available